This all reminds me of the sexuality portrayed among children in Brave New World, or the supposed homosexuality of Ancient Greece. What I suspect is happening here is that even voluntary pedophilia is harmful for children relative to our current society, but who knows what the case would be in a very differently structured society. Sexuality by definition is largely about how we relate with other people, so what is our isn't harmful in sexual development almost certainly depends at least in part on the society we live in.
Which means that forces that want to conserve the relevant aspects of our society have an incentive to censor RMS on any thoughts along those lines.
I still don't think "disgusting" is the right category for RMS's "thinking out loud on the internet", but the remark was definitely dangerously naive of the developmental stages of children.
It's also sobering to see how easy it is for myself to write something that can be interpreted to sound much more nefarious than what was really in my head when I wrote it.
On that topic though, I understood it to be an academic exercise, just a case of internal inquiry, and not a statement of personal motivation of any kind. I don't believe it is disgusting to objectively consider any concept without bias, even if I disagree with the consideration itself. Consideration of any ideas being off limits is indistinguishable from heresy.
> ... and then says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be "entirely willing".
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...
The dead comment next to mine has more examples. That said, the line
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.
is incredibly disgusting, no matter how you look at it.